User talk:GFauxPas/Sandbox

Arrangement

Hey, proofs are looking good! It's up to you, but I would put new entries in the sandbox on bottom. Makes it easier to follow ;) --Joe (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2011 (CST)

Matrices $\longleftrightarrow$ Linear Transformations

Good job creating this important correspondence! Keep it up. --Lord_Farin 13:52, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Thanks! It's cool stuff. --GFauxPas 13:58, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

You might want to consider using eg. $\mathbf{A A' x}$ instead of tripling the mathbf. --Lord_Farin 16:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Laplace work

Have you seen this?: Integral of Product of Exponential with Sine or Cosine --prime mover (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh that simplifies things. Well, good to practice my integration by parts I suppose! --GFauxPas (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, except, quoting that theorem gives me the term $\left({-s}\right)^2$, which is problematic. --GFauxPas (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Lemma

Surely $4$ is a multiple of $2$ in $\left\{ {2, 3, 4}\right\}$ or am I missing something obvious? --prime mover (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

D'oh, it's the other way around. No other number is a multiple of it. By the way, is it "largest" or "greatest"? --GFauxPas (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Largest or greatest, doesn't matter. It nags at me that we don't have a formal definition of a "largest number". Although we do define the term in the context of an abstract ordered / totally ordered set, we don't specifically state what a "largest number" actually is in order that it may be linked to. --prime mover (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely, btw, it holds for any integer, not just $2$? --prime mover (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't I notice, on reflection, doesn't hold for $3$. --prime mover (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)